Blog Wiki talk:Censorship
Censorship mitigating What about moving "offensive" postings to a separate section of the site so that those who are concerned about censorship can check on the site owner's criteria for removal? --I really, really want this. There are a few blogs such as Monsters and Critics that "memory hole" comments some anonymous "moderator" disagrees with. It's really demoralizing to watch comments disappear off a site and have no way to take the site to task for it. I see this as a responsibility thing. A blogger should be responsible for what they delete as much as for what they say. --(a different) Erik, I don't have a login yet. slippery slope of censorship These proposals will create a slippery slope of censorship. Nearly every blog has settings on who can comment and other levels of controls on who can add to the blog(being clueless is no excuse). The list is very subjective, the history of free speech is littered with politically correct rules, only to serve the oppressor. My view is to give people time to grow up and mature. Let's remember who owes "Freedom of Speech" to us People are owed freedom of speech by their governments. Not by each other. If a telemarketer calls me and I hang up without listening, I am not violating the telemarketer's freedom of speech. If someone puts a comment on my blog and I delete it because it's offensive, stupid or just written poorly, I'm not violating their freedom of speech; I'm looking after the integrity of my blog. - Dscrimshaw ---- In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that newspaper editors have the right to pick and choose which editorials will be printed. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/17.html#7 Restrictions on Radio and Television are only accepted because of the historic definition of radio bandwidth as a limited resource that is leased by the government to commercial radio stations. The bottom line is that the First Amendment gives me as the "editor" of a blog or community forum, complete liberty to delete any posts I believe run counter to the mission of that site. I am under no obligation to let anybody use my bandwidth for their speech. My site policies do not prevent you from shouting your opinion on any corner, or using the hundreds free or cheap services that are available (starting with your local street corner, which might actually reach a larger audience than most blogs.) --Kirk Job Sluder, kirkjobsluder at gmail dot com. Perhaps better stated: your freedom of speech does not obligate me to listen to you, nor does it obligate me to provide a forum for you (perhaps Intel v. Hamdi or the like is applicable here) -- David Mackintosh, dave at xdroop dot com Yes. A private blog is not a microcosm of the nation; anyone can start their own LJ or MT site and say whatever they like. Imo there's a continuum, from a private blog like LJ to a large public forum where the banned person might never be able to reach the large audience with his side of the issue. At such a large forum, I think it would be fair to leave links to the banned person's own site, and to refrain from badmouthing him after he is no longer present to defend himself. Or, if possible, it would be good to move the whole controversy to some special area of the large forum. On an ordinary individual blog, deleting an inappropriate comment is not a free speech issue (although even there, it would be more fair to leave a link to the banned person's own site). Of course I'm not talking about people who post profanity, just those who may have some sincere issue. -- anon 101: Codes of Conduct can be used as an excuse for censorship. If you dislike a blog, don't read it or link to it. As far as I am concerned, net nannies who compile lists of blogger dos and don'ts like this one can FOAD. Idetrorce very interesting, but I don't agree with you Idetrorce